Brenizer Method

[TylerRandall]

Hey there (:

Not sure if anybody else has had a try at this, but it is rather fun and makes for an amazing shot with a lot of depth.

You pretty much take a panorama portrait to create more dramatic depth.

To start off you just snap a shot of your subject and then continue to shoot the surrounding environment; each of the shots below consist of 10 or more images stitched together.

They were all shot with a 50mm; I haven't tried yet (due to lack of lens), however you can get even more depth with a larger focal length such as 85mm.

You can learn more about the Brenizer Method by clicking here

[OsmosisStudios]

The Brenizer method works best with longer focal lengths and, i'd wager, a larger aperture. As it stands it looks like you shot with a 35mm f/1.4, if that.

I tried this a while back at 300mm/5.6. Worked well, though the stitching was a pain.

[sk66]

The Brenizer method works best with longer focal lengths and, i'd wager, a larger aperture.

Yeah, the purpose it get a large FOV while also getting the shallow DOF and perspective of a longer lens used "too close."

[doveq]

Interesting, I don't know much about this approach... To avoid camera shake... you need a remote to change aperture for each shot ?

[rspears]

for those of you who have never seen the Brenizer Method,

The Brenizer Method. Part 1, taking the photo(s) - YouTube

The Brenizer Method: Bokeh Panorama - YouTube

[argonaut]

Thanks for sharing, your shots look great. Sounds like a lot of hard work though... might try it sometime.

[MattJohnRobinson]

Tyler, I think you did a great job with these, and the DOF you've created is very nice. The shots look awesome--great lighting. #1 and #3 really stand out.

The Brenizer method works best with longer focal lengths and, i'd wager, a larger aperture. As it stands it looks like you shot with a 35mm f/1.4, if that.

I tried this a while back at 300mm/5.6. Worked well, though the stitching was a pain.

Are you referring to the shots that you took of your old cameras? Because if you are, those shots completely lacked any of the depth of field/field of view impact that the Brenizer method is supposed to allow you to obtain. Those shots, basically, looked like normal single images and were boring, in my opinion. And why would you want to shoot with a larger aperture? The idea is to get as much bokeh as you can to show a shallow depth of field, while also using a very large field of view. A smaller aperture is doing to negate the effect.

[OsmosisStudios]

Are you referring to the shots that you took of your old cameras? Because if you are, those shots completely lacked any of the depth of field/field of view impact that the Brenizer method is supposed to allow you to obtain. Those shots, basically, looked like normal single images and were boring, in my opinion. And why would you want to shoot with a larger aperture? The idea is to get as much bokeh as you can to show a shallow depth of field, while also using a very large field of view. A smaller aperture is doing to negate the effect.

And a hello to you too?

The images of the camera (this and this?) were not supposed to be a Brenizer method example: I wanted huge resolution. They were shot with a 40mm f/2.8 lens. DoF is shallow because of the proximity. Im sorry you found them boring, but I dont see them as reason enough for the attitude I got from you.

Secondly: I used a 300mm at f/5.6 because, on Nikon's 70-300 VR, the maximum aperture is f/5.6 at 300mm. For the record: 300mm at f/5.6, on DX, gives 1" of DoF at 10ft and 3" at 20 feet. An 85mm f/1.8, for instance, gives 4" at 10 ft and 14" at 20 ft. So your comment about getting MORE DoF from a 300mm at f/5.6 is completely wrong.

[PhilD41]

Love #3. I had never heard of this method, but it makes sense. I may have to give it a go at some point. It looks like fun, but my "models" right now would never stay still enough for me to take the shots needed.

[MattJohnRobinson]

And a hello to you too?

The images of the camera (this and this?) were not supposed to be a Brenizer method example: I wanted huge resolution. They were shot with a 40mm f/2.8 lens. DoF is shallow because of the proximity. Im sorry you found them boring, but I dont see them as reason enough for the attitude I got from you.

Secondly: I used a 300mm at f/5.6 because, on Nikon's 70-300 VR, the maximum aperture is f/5.6 at 300mm. For the record: 300mm at f/5.6, on DX, gives 1" of DoF at 10ft and 3" at 20 feet. An 85mm f/1.8, for instance, gives 4" at 10 ft and 14" at 20 ft. So your comment about getting MORE DoF from a 300mm at f/5.6 is completely wrong.

Oh, that's funny, because right here I asked what the point of the macro stitching was, and you replied "the Ryan Breziner Effect". Read your own words.

And even if those weren't the photos that you were talking about, where are the photos that you also tried to emmulate the Breziner Effect? I'd love to see them. Please share?

If you don't like my "attitude," you could refrain from coming onto somebody's thread and basically telling them "you didn't do it right, but I did this before and my shots look awesome". And what's worse, the information you're trying to advise him with is absolutely NOT the best way to go about it. You think Ryan Breziner shoots with a 300mm f/5.6? Ha. Yeah, ok. Why don't you actually listen to what he recommends. Something like an 85 at 1.2...hm, what a surprise.